Gs 1866Y/1877Y General Synod Draft Church of England
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GS 1866Y/1877Y GENERAL SYNOD DRAFT CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE DRAFT AMENDING CANON NO. 31 REPORT OF THE REVISION COMMITTEE Chair: Mrs Caroline Spencer (Canterbury) Ex-officio members The Reverend Paul Benfield (Blackburn) (Chair) (Steering Committee): Mrs Julie Dziegiel (Oxford) The Reverend Canon Geoffrey Harbord (Sheffield) The Venerable Jan McFarlane (Norwich) Mrs Sheri Sturgess (Truro) Appointed members: Dr Graham Campbell (Chester) Ms Susan Cooper (London) The Reverend Canon Perran Gay (Truro) Mr Malcolm Halliday (Bradford) The Reverend Canon Andrew Salmon (Manchester) Staff: Sir Anthony Hammond KCB QC (Standing Counsel to the General Synod) Ms Saira Salimi (Deputy Official Solicitor to the Church Commissioners) The Reverend Alexander McGregor (Deputy Legal Adviser to the Archbishops’ Council and the General Synod) Miss Sarah Clemenson (Secretary) References in this report to “the Committee” are references to the Revision Committee. References to clause numbers and paragraph numbers reflect the original clause and paragraph numbers in GS 1866 and GS 1877 unless otherwise indicated. Decisions taken by the Committee were taken unanimously unless otherwise indicated. 1. The draft Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure and draft Amending Canon No. 31 received First Consideration at the July 2012 group of sessions of the General Synod. The period for submission of proposals for amendment under Standing Order 53(a) expired on 10th August 2012. Copies of the submissions are available at http://www.churchofengland.org/about- us/structure/churchlawlegis/legislation/inprogress/submissions-made-to-revision-committees. 2. Prior to the closing date mentioned in paragraph 1, ten members of the General Synod, and the Council for Christian Unity, submitted proposals for amendment of the draft Measure. Two members of the General Synod submitted proposals for amendment of the draft Canon. Proposals for amendment to the draft Measure and draft Amending Canon were also made by the Steering Committee. The Committee itself also identified an issue which led it to make amendments to the draft Measure and Canon. 3. The Committee met on four occasions and the proposals which it accepted form the basis of the draft Measure (GS 1866A) and the draft Amending Canon (GS 1877A) now before the Synod. Amendments made by the Committee are shown in bold type. 4. Four members of the Synod – Mr Adrian Vincent, the Reverend Hugh Lee, the Reverend Simon Cawdell and Mr James Cheeseman – exercised their right under Standing Order 53(b) to attend while their proposals were considered and to speak to their proposals. 5. The Committee decided to sit in public. 6. Set out in the Appendix to this report the Synod will find a summary of the amendments considered by the Committee as well as the Committee’s decision on each. The Draft Measure CLAUSE 1 Amendment of Ecclesiastical Commissioners Act 1840 7. No proposals were received in relation to clause 1 and the Committee made no amendments. CLAUSE 2 Amendment of Burial Act 1857 – Offence of removal of body from burial ground 8. The Right Worshipful Timothy Briden (Vicar General of the Province of Canterbury) sent a submission pointing out that as currently drafted, subsections (1) and (2) of the proposed new section 25 of the Burial Act 1857 might be construed as giving an applicant in relation to exhumation a free choice between seeking authorisation under ecclesiastical law or seeking a licence for exhumation by the Secretary of State. 9. That was not the intention of the provision but staff accepted that as currently drafted it was open to that interpretation. The Steering Committee proposed amendments to put that right. The Revision Committee agreed to amend the Measure in accordance with the Steering Committee’s proposals. 10. On a separate question asked by the Vicar General, the Committee was informed that it was the intention that guidance on the ecclesiastical law concerning exhumation should be provided to the Cathedrals Fabric Commission and fabric advisory committees to ensure consistency of practice. CLAUSE 3 Amendment of Episcopal Endowments and Stipends Measure 1943 11. No proposals were received in relation to clause 3 and the Committee made no amendments. CLAUSE 4 (now clause 6) Amendment of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure 1963 12. No proposals were received in relation to clause 4 and the Committee made no amendments. CLAUSE 5 (now clause 7) 2 Amendment of Faculty Jurisdiction Measure 1964 13. No proposals were received in relation to clause 5 and the Committee made no amendments. CLAUSE 6 (now clause 8) Amendment of Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 14. The Bishop of Willesden (the Right Reverend Peter Broadbent) raised a number of issues about the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 that were concerned with the way in which the Measure is operated in practice rather than with the provisions of the Measure itself. The Committee was advised that further legislative provision was not required to address those points. 15. The Bishop also suggested that the 1967 Measure was in need of a “radical overhaul” but appeared to accept that a miscellaneous provisions Measure was not the right legislative vehicle for achieving that. 16. The Committee noted the Bishop of Willesden’s submission but did not make any amendments to clause 6 as a result of the points raised by him. 17. In his submission, the Reverend Hugh Lee pointed out that the policy of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York was not to grant permission to officiate in their respective provinces under the 1967 Measure to overseas clergy who had been ordained by women bishops. He proposed that the Committee should amend the draft Measure “to make such discrimination unlawful”. 18. The Committee was advised that as a matter of law, it was not open to the Archbishops to grant to female overseas bishops permission to carry out ordinations and other episcopal functions in England. The exercise of episcopal functions in England was governed wholly by English ecclesiastical law and under that law it was not currently possible for women to be bishops. 19. The legal position was different with regard to priests and deacons who had been ordained overseas by female bishops. That was because the legal status of those ordinations fell to be determined by reference to the canons of the province where those ordinations took place. As a matter of law, it would be possible for the Archbishops to grant a person who had been ordained deacon or priest by a woman bishop in a province where that was in accordance with the local canons. However, the fact that that was legally possible did not determine the question of whether or not they should do so. It was open to the Archbishops to operate policies as to how they would apply the Measure provided that any such policies were within the terms of the Measure and not otherwise unlawful. 20. Because the proposal raised a substantial question of policy, after a preliminary discussion, the Committee deferred consideration of the proposal to enable consultation with the archbishops to take place. The Secretary General subsequently wrote to the Chair of the Revision Committee as follows– I understand that the Revision Committee for the draft Miscellaneous Provisions Measure has received a submission from the Reverend Hugh Lee relating to the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967 which concerns the long-standing policy of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York relating to clergy ordained overseas by female bishops. In answer to a question from the Reverend Dr Miranda Threlfall-Holmes at the July 2011 group of sessions of the General Synod, I said– “Overseas clergy may officiate in the provinces of Canterbury or York only with the written permission of the relevant archbishop, given under the Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure 1967. That requirement applies whether they are from elsewhere in the Anglican Communion, from a Porvoo Church or from 3 another Church with whom we are in communion or whose orders are recognized and accepted by the Church of England. As a matter of policy, the Archbishops do not give such permission to clergy whose orders were conferred by a female bishop, given that the Church of England has yet to admit women to episcopal ministry.” As matters currently stand, that remains the position. As you know, paving motions were passed in 2005 and 2006, setting in train the legislative process that would make it possible to ordain women to the episcopate. Following the rejection in November of the draft measure, the House of Bishops committed itself to bringing fresh legislative proposals to the Synod this July. A working group, consisting of members of all three Houses, is meeting intensively at the moment to support the House of Bishops in this task. The paving motions – while expressing the opinion of the Synod on the question – did not in themselves have the effect of changing the Church of England’s doctrinal position concerning the admission of women to the episcopate. To achieve that, it is necessary for legislation – in the form of a Measure and a Canon – to be passed in accordance with the special procedural requirements of Articles 7 and 8 of the Constitution (which are specifically concerned with certain matters of a doctrinal nature). Until that happens, there would be an inconsistency with the present doctrinal position if the archbishops were to give permission to officiate as priests and deacons to those ordained by women bishops overseas. This is because the granting of permission would involve accepting actions by those bishops which are not yet accepted within the doctrinal framework of the Church of England. To change the policy operated under the 1967 Measure before the Church of England has changed its formal doctrinal position on women in the episcopate would, therefore, raise very significant issues, which the Archbishops would need to consider very carefully before they could consent to it.